Originally Posted by ironchamp
Not quite....I think Lyle seems to be the easier choice.
He was green at this point, less than 20 fights under his belt. He had alot of potential but he hadnt blossmed.
From a mangement standpoint Foreman was the obvious choice. The risk reward ratio was a little bit better.
In 1973 Foreman was the right guy. He was undefeated, he was a gold medalist- he seemed to lack proper form and technique and he had just the right credentials to make a Frazier win look good. There is a reason why George came in the underdog.
Yes, it is a reasonable viewpoint that, as of '73 (though not so much in '76, which you may note I also included), Foreman was a better risk/reward choice than Lyle or Shavers; however, this is specifically BECAUSE he was better than them and thus had a superior record and far superior credentials, meaning that a win over him (which was believed quite doable) would be worth more. Notice, the poll question is "Which would look most beatable
to you?" not "Which would be the best choice of opponent, all factors taken into account?" and thus your vote should not follow this reasoning.
Shavers - His record is intimidating and his KO ratio is very high and his
right hand was something to fear. The risk reward ratio isnt very high.
I would have avoided this fight until it was necessary.
Note that Foreman had an even more
intimidating record and an even more